<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (8) TMI 1097 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278570</link>
    <description>A mortgagor cannot, during pending mortgage litigation, create a lease that prejudices the mortgagee or an auction-purchaser. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies the doctrine of lis pendens, so any lease made pendente lite is bound by the result of the mortgage suit and cannot defeat rights in the property. Section 65-A, which regulates a mortgagor&#039;s power to lease, does not protect a tenancy created in breach of Section 52. Rent legislation also afforded no protection where the tenancy itself was unlawfully inducted during the pendency of proceedings. The tenant&#039;s induction was therefore ineffective against the mortgagee, and possession followed in favour of the purchaser.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:16:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1097 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278570</link>
      <description>A mortgagor cannot, during pending mortgage litigation, create a lease that prejudices the mortgagee or an auction-purchaser. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies the doctrine of lis pendens, so any lease made pendente lite is bound by the result of the mortgage suit and cannot defeat rights in the property. Section 65-A, which regulates a mortgagor&#039;s power to lease, does not protect a tenancy created in breach of Section 52. Rent legislation also afforded no protection where the tenancy itself was unlawfully inducted during the pendency of proceedings. The tenant&#039;s induction was therefore ineffective against the mortgagee, and possession followed in favour of the purchaser.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>